Standards for risk assessment of standards: how the international community is starting to address the risk of the wrong standards

Technical standards pervade commerce and society and allow the complexity of modern life to operate at all levels, global included. They also provide protection against many risks, whether from food, from dangerous products or from fraud. They are so self-evidently worthy that they are rarely challenged, yet anything as powerful and pervasive as the web of standards needs some element of oversight and quality assurance. There is a danger of over-regulating and the placing of unnecessary constraints on the market and, cumulatively, a constraint on liberties. Technical standards are derived from many sources and for many reasons. The oversight function may need to relate to these reasons, such as the World Trade Organisation controls on damage to trade through protectionist standards. A very common reason for standards is safety, which tends to be treated as an absolute, as an objective technical matter, and there is less oversight or quality assurance of standards set for safety reasons. But safety is a relative term and increases in safety will usually have costs. Judgement needs to be applied in a risk assessment but that raises institutional issues as to who is qualified to apply that judgement. There are also issues of the accountability of those who increase the safety ratchet, which are also related to the institutional issue. This paper explores a case study of one draft standard as an illustration of the need for oversight and then goes on to consider methods of managing the risks inherent in standardisation and technical regulation. It looks in particular at two recent initiatives from within the standards community itself. One is a broad-based proposal for the community to focus on risk management and the other is an instance where a technical regulator has commissioned and designed an impact assessment system in order to provide that quality assurance and accountability.